W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: sections removed, current and ongoing

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:28:23 +0100
Message-ID: <4B487667.60807@lachy.id.au>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> In addition to the Issue process, another option when you disagree with
> the outcome is to reopen a bug with new information for the editor.
> That's happening in the case of <details>. So please comment in the bug
> if you feel strongly. I suspect this one is going to the issue tracker
> one way or another though.

The problem here is that keeping track of all bugzilla discussions is 
not as easy, and clearly not as transparent as having discussions here. 
  I don't believe the single e-mail that gets sent here when a bug is 
tagged with 'NE' is sufficient to gain attention.  (I usually ignore 
those e-mails cause they usually contain no real information).

I think a more appropriate solution needs to be found that balances the 
transparency of the mailing list, with the useful organisation of bugzilla.

Bugs for relatively minor or editoral issues that shouldn't be 
controversial, can go straight in bugzilla without bothering everyone on 
the list, and be dealt with quickly by the editors of whichever spec its 
for.

This is effectively the type of issue I thought bugzilla was set up for 
dealing with in this group, so we could separate the trivial issues from 
the more significant ones being discussed here.  But somehow, bugzilla 
seems to have morphed into catch-all system for all issues, big and small.

Major issues, such as those requesting the removal of sections, should 
start their discussions here on the list, which will allow us to get a 
better understanding of how the rest of the group feels about the issue. 
  (People should be able to use reasonable judgement and common sense to 
determine whether their issue is major or minor, but if in doubt, 
mailing this list first shouldn't hurt.)

A bug should be opened in bugzilla either at the same time as the 
discussion starts, or at least once its clear it's a major issue with 
significant discussion and no clear resolution.

Bugzilla can then be used for documenting the significant arguments 
for/against that have been raised, citing/quoting relevant e-mails. 
Significant discussion of the issue should still take place on the list, 
with buzilla being used to record the major arguments.

If the discussion gets heated, perhaps the interested parties could be 
asked to continue their discussion only within bugzilla and come back to 
the rest of the group later when they have something to report.  This 
allows people to opt-in or out of a particular discussion freely by 
CC'ing themselves on the bug, and serve to reduce the traffic on this 
list, keeping the discussion somewhat isolated from those who may not be 
particularly interested in following every little bit of it.

This will allow the editors to review the issue with all the arguments 
presented concisely, and allow an initial decision.  The editor should 
then respond to this list giving a detailed rationale for agreeing or 
disagreeing with the request, and record the decision in the bug 
tracker.  Following that, the existing decision policy process can 
continue to be followed to escalate the issue if necessary.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Saturday, 9 January 2010 12:28:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:57 GMT